Summary

Benziger v. United States — Opinion of the Court

Some regarded the term 'sculpture so wide that it was difficult to define definitely,' although they thought that the figures in question were not casts of sculpture, while some regarded casts of sculpture 'as such classes of plaster casts or clay or marble or bronze as are to stand singly and alone, and not be sold in endless numbers, and to be exhibited temporarily in some exhibition.' We think the last definition is inaccurate and inadmissible. Under this view, whether a figure is a cast of sculpture or not, does not in the least depend upon how it is made.
Source: Wikisource

Benziger v. United States — Opinion of the Court

The sculptor invariably goes over his plaster cast with utmost care, not only repairing any defects in the moulding, but defining more accurately the hair, finger nails, folds of the drapery, and outline generally, and, above all, perfecting the facial and general expression. These plaster of Paris models are known in commerce and in art as 'casts of sculpture.' They represent the artist's right and title to his creation, and unlike the merchandise in question here, are not painted and decorated, nor dealt in as ordinary commercial articles.
Source: Wikisource

Benziger v. United States — Opinion of the Court

Whether the clay model is the work of the superior genius of a great sculptor or is the result of the efforts of one who could not be classed as a genius at all, they are both fashioned in the same way and the same process is followed with regard to both, and we do not think that in this statute there was any intention to confine the meaning to casts of those clay figures which were fashioned by the hand of genius, while excluding those of inferior artists or workmen.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature